Fl news, NRA asks sherriffs to take survey

[gym]

Posted: 8:59 p.m. Sunday, June 17, 2012


NRA goes after Florida sheriffs candidates with survey:
The NRA’s Florida lobbyist Marion Hammer sent a survey on behalf of the NRA and the United Sportsmen of Florida, whom she also represents, to sheriffs candidates around the state for the first time ever earlier this month. The questions, which critics say are lopsided, involve often controversial issues such as the state’s Stand Your Ground law and the sheriffs’ opposition to an “open carry” bill.
The survey, "exerpts"
Questionnaire excerpts, the following is an example of the survey which I took from the.Palm Beach Post.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/nra-goes-after-florida-sheriffs-candidates-with-su/nPXj3/

— In 2005, the Florida Legislature codified common law into statutory law and passed “Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground” legislation to protect the rights of victims. Now, anti-gun agitators, who oppose self-defense, are working to destroy the freedom and rights of innocent victims in favor of protecting criminals.

Do you agree that no victim of crime should be required to surrender his life, health, safety, personal dignity, autonomy, or property to a criminal, nor should a victim be required to retreat in the face of attack from any place he or she has a right to be?

a. ___ Yes, I believe the “Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground” is appropriate and victims have a right to fight back without a duty to retreat.

b. ___ No, I oppose the “Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground” and believe victims should surrender to criminals or retreat to avoid fighting back.

— It is a growing practice of some sheriffs and their deputies to travel to Tallahassee during legislative session to lobby against Second Amendment issues and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Some even make those trips using official vehicles, while officially on duty and lobby in their official uniforms.

A. Do you believe it is appropriate for a sheriff to lobby or use deputies and/or their deputies to lobby against the Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding citizens they are sworn to serve?

a. ___ No, I would not do it and I would not allow it.

b. ___ Yes, I think it’s appropriate.

B. Do you believe it is appropriate for a sheriff or any of his deputies or employees to lobby on issues against the constitutional rights of law-abiding firearms owners , in the name of the Sheriff, Sheriffs department or any Organization or Association in any official law enforcement capacity.

a. ___ No, I would not allow it. Our duty is to respect and serve our community and uphold the law and the Constitution.

b. ___Yes, I would allow it if it makes things more convenient for law enforcement.

— During the 2011 legislative session, legislation was introduced to protect concealed weapons/firearms (CW) license holders against harassment, persecution and prosecution, if — in the course of carrying concealed — a firearm was accidentally, inadvertently or unintentionally exposed to public view or if the imprint of a firearm was recognized by a law enforcement officer.

The legislation was opposed by anti-gun Sheriffs, so the legislation was modified to protect CW license holders if a firearm was briefly exposed, with a caveat that if the harassment continued, new legislation would be pursued. Unfortunately, the harassment and prosecutions continue and the definition of “briefly” is in dispute.

Do you support allowing law-abiding persons licensed by the state to carry a concealed firearm to also carry openly?

a. ___ Yes, I support open carry by CW license holders as a means to stop harassment by those anti-gun law enforcement officers.

b. ___ No, I oppose open carry by CW license holders
Apparantlly the NRA, will back those who they approve of, along with their millions of voters. A non answer will be considered a negative against that sherriff, What do you guys think of this.
I personally approve of it, we should know where our chief Law enforcement officers stand.
Although a general question,if it should be in legal, I apoligize in advance.

 

[brboyer]

DATE: June 18, 2012
TO: NRA & Unified Sportsmen of Florida Members and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

Below is an article by Dara Kam published in the Palm Beach Post on June 17, titled "NRA goes after Florida sheriffs candidates with survey."

Although the headline is slanted (and reporters don't write the headlines), Dara Kam wrote what we think is a balanced story. When both sides are heard, people can cut through the rhetoric.

Just because some sheriffs are uncomfortable answering some of the questions and don't like the options for answers, is exactly why it is framed the way it is.

Both questions and answers are framed around ACTUAL events and statements made in testimony. The questionnaire seeks the truth, and no one can claim they didn't understand the question, the issue or the options for answers. The questionnaire does not allow anyone to skirt the truth.

Make no mistake, sheriffs are politicians. They ask for money and votes. Voters have a right to know where they stand on issues that are important to them before they give either.

 

[The_Next_Generation]

When are we going to be able to find out about the results?

 

[Flopsweat]

To be fair, the wording of the questions is very poor, regardless of how honestly the events and facts themselves are portrayed. "By choosing answer number two I affirm that I am an idiot and a baby killer." If we expect decency from the other side, we need to practice it as well. We really should not support this sort of petty nonsense. We're better than that.

 

[mnrivrat]

"By choosing answer number two I affirm that I am an idiot and a baby killer."

Where is that, or anythjing simular to that in the survey ?

The wording may be a little biased in your opinion, but we get hit with that bias big time from the other side on every survey they conduct. I don't see nearly the slant in this one, it is straight forward and brings the matter to the point without trying to sneak thru the back door.

 

[Nushif]

A non answer will be considered a negative against that sherriff [...]

The answers are worded pretty distinctly to say the least. Distinctly unbalanced, but that kinda is the way the NRA is lobbying. Remember. The NRA isn't an organization trying to be fair.
But the quoted part is in my opinion what makes the survey useless. Sheriffs have the duty to uphold the law, not take surveys from random lobbies. And just because a sheriff follows that duty exclusively doesn't mean he is against the second amendment.

[edit]
What essentially this survey says is:
This answer is correct, any other answer means you're against the second amendment, against the constitution and a lousy sheriff.

[edit]
Wow. Early morning. Lots of bad spelling, which leads to wrong words. 8)

 

[The-Reaver]

I personally like it.

When will the results be in?

 

[robhof]

Although I agree with the wording, it does kind of leave you with no choice, such as if you are a recist answer yes or no to the question.

 

[Sock Puppet]

I have no major issue with it. The NRA is a special interest group who focuses RTKBA issues and they make no bones about it. They have submitted a questionair to politicians seeking public office and asked them to answer. Should the politicians answers align with the interest group (NRA), then said group will provide financial and voter support to the candidate. There is nothing shady or misrepresented here. Should the candidate choose not to answer, they can address why they chose not to (or not) if they want. The voter can decide if they like/dislike the candidates explanation, or decided if it's a meaningless issue.

 

[Flopsweat]

Where is that, or anythjing simular to that in the survey ?

The wording may be a little biased in your opinion, but we get hit with that bias big time from the other side on every survey they conduct. I don't see nearly the slant in this one, it is straight forward and brings the matter to the point without trying to sneak thru the back door.

Right here:

No, I oppose the “Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground” and believe victims should surrender to criminals or retreat to avoid fighting back.

The opposition would object to that wording just as much as we object to the misuse of the word "vigilante" or the made up term "assault weapon". Very few of them want to disarm us out of spite. Most of them have good intentions and bad information. Ironically, many of the less vehement anti-gunners think this exact same thing of us. Or at least the ones in my area. YMMV.

 

[JustinJ]

— It is a growing practice of some sheriffs and their deputies to travel to Tallahassee during legislative session to lobby against Second Amendment issues and the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Some even make those trips using official vehicles, while officially on duty and lobby in their official uniforms.

So would the NRA object to them lobbying for gun rights on duty, in uniform by way of official vehicles?

 

[lemaymiami]

I glanced at a few of the questions listed and if they're correctly quoted... the NRA has just taken a great idea and turned it into a self-inflicted wound.

Yes, sheriffs are political animals. I agree that they should have to deal with questions from every quarter as part of the election process but these questions are much more about making a statement than asking a question, in my opinion. I know the NRA has a sincere point of view and that taking a stand when you're under constant fire is the right thing to do... that said, ordinary folks who read these questions will quickly come to the wrong conclusion (or maybe the right conclusion if you're among those who oppose the principles established by the second amendment....).

I was a junior NRA member all those years ago (mid sixties in my case) and avidly read the American Rifleman as each issue came out back then. Almost fifty years later, and a retired cop, Vietnam vet, etc. my advice to any sheriff candidate that receives this questionaire would be to decline to reply to it, period. I'm a steady supporter of most "gun rights" issues, but this sort of stuff is just plain counter-productive in my opinion. Don't know whether this item came from my state or the national organization but it won't accomplish much and will boost those that oppose most of what the NRA is trying to do.

I expect to get assaulted from all sides for saying this, but I'm being sincere here....

 

[Nushif]

No assault from my end. These are not fair questions to ask.

 

[Skribs]

The first question, on Castle Doctrine or SYG, isn't too biased. It asks straight up whether it should be legal for citizens to defend themselves.

I would have had 3 possible answers though:
1) Legally able to stand your ground.
2) Duty to retreat, legally able to defend yourself if no avenue of escape is available.
3) Required to retreat or comply with no legal justification for defending oneself.

I think a lot of fencers are in #2, and even a lot of pro-gun people seek to retreat if they're not at home - why get in a gunfight if you don't have to? Personally, I'm with number 1 - while you might choose to retreat, you should have the option to stand your ground. The media just needs to not take every case where someone claims self defense as reason for self defense laws being used wrong - anyone can claim it, wait until the courts decide.

---

The second question, parts A and B...A looks good. It asks if you think it is or isn't appropriate. B is one-sided. "I'll do it if it makes it more convenient."

---

The third question I would have added a third answer, only I'd write them better if it was for an official survey:

1) I support Open Carry indiscriminately.
2) I support the prevention of harassment from LEO by someone who is carrying concealed, but through printing or brief reveal shows that they are carrying.
3) I do not support Open Carry in any form.

---

As to the questions being one-sided, in all honesty: this isn't a survey for the masses to take statistics. It is a survey where they are asking each candidate for their stance on an issue. In any political debate, you're going to get people asking questions to see which candidate they want to support.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I really don't understand all the sudden interest in 'Stand your ground laws' as according to witnesses, George Zimmerman was not standing but laying flat on his back, pinned to the ground, screaming for help and taking a beating before he ever defended himself. Also, there was no crime for him to retreat from until Martin created one by punching him in the face which knocked him down. Did Zimmerman speak to Martin first? Who knows, but even if he did it is not a crime to ask someone who they are or what they are doing.

 

[basicblur]

I think Mr. Sparks covered this one pretty well.
Just because MSNBC sez it's a SYG case doesn't mean it is!

 

[Furncliff]

I guess history is written by the survivor.

 

[basicblur]

Well I just blew through the survey, but I really have no complaints with the wording. They're just spelling out what it really means if a sheriff answers yes / no.

Sheriffs are politicians - if the survey wasn't worded as it is, you'd have the typical politcal answer like "I believe in the 2nd, but..."
When folks they say that, chances are they don't really believe in the 2nd.
Looks like the wording just removes a politician's usual wiggle room?

It's nice to have a little clarity and plain talk when dealing with political figures these days, is it not?

 

[psyopspec]

To be fair, the wording of the questions is very poor, regardless of how honestly the events and facts themselves are portrayed. "By choosing answer number two I affirm that I am an idiot and a baby killer." If we expect decency from the other side, we need to practice it as well. We really should not support this sort of petty nonsense. We're better than that.

Yep. These questions are more loaded than the average American belly at a Mongolian grill.

The ACLU could put out a survey on profiling that allows candidates to check two boxes:

__ No, profiling is wrong since it allows prejudicial action based solely or in part on skin color.

__ Yes, I think profiling is okay. I am, therefore, a racist who is against civil liberties and equal treatment under the law.

I suspect if they did so, many on this forum would be riled up. But, since the loaded questions (actually, more the answers) lean a certain way, the method becomes okay. To be perfectly clear, I think my made up survey would be just as wrong as the NRAs. I'd rather see these posed as open-ended questions; better still done in a town-hall format, but any format allowing them to explain their answer. While I'm sure the survey will warm the cockles of single-issue voters, for people my age and younger instruments like this one are a huge turn off to politics in general and activism in particular. There seems to be no national conversation anymore; everything must fit into a soundbyte, and if I don't perfectly mold to the pigeon hole, I'm not welcome on the wagon.

To keep it clear what I'm getting at, I think the questions raised are important ones. I think they need to be openly discussed. In fact, I consider them so important that the nature of the discussion shouldn't distract from the issue at hand through the use of slippery slope, begging the question, straw man arguments, or in this case, loaded answers.

 

[Neverwinter]

I guess history is written by the survivor.

Agreed.
The Zimmerman case just might turn out that way, even if the victor has been shown to be dishonest toward the court.

Yep. These questions are more loaded than the average American belly at a Mongolian grill.

The ACLU could put out a survey on profiling that allows candidates to check two boxes:

__ No, profiling is wrong since it allows prejudicial action based solely or in part on skin color.

__ Yes, I think profiling is okay. I am, therefore, a racist who is against civil liberties and equal treatment under the law.

I suspect if they did so, many on this forum would be riled up. But, since the loaded questions (actually, more the answers) lean a certain way, the method becomes okay. To be perfectly clear, I think my made up survey would be just as wrong as the NRAs. I'd rather see these posed as open-ended questions; better still done in a town-hall format, but any format allowing them to explain their answer. While I'm sure the survey will warm the cockles of single-issue voters, for people my age and younger instruments like this one are a huge turn off to politics in general and activism in particular. There seems to be no national conversation anymore; everything must fit into a soundbyte, and if I don't perfectly mold to the pigeon hole, I'm not welcome on the wagon.

To keep it clear what I'm getting at, I think the questions raised are important ones. I think they need to be openly discussed. In fact, I consider them so important that the nature of the discussion shouldn't distract from the issue at hand through the use of slippery slope, begging the question, straw man arguments, or in this case, loaded answers.

The phrasing of those questions tends to make me agreed with that sentiment regarding the purpose of the questions. If the true purpose of the questionnaire was to gather information about the candidates so that the voters would be able to make an informed decision on who best protects the 2nd Amendment, they would be phrased in a neutral manner. As it stands, it sounds like an effort to energize The Base with red meat.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Owen Sparks]

I seriously doubt that this survay got many responces.

 

[gym]

I think it accomplishes what it was meant to do. Get sherriffs off the fence. To that end it seems to leave no hiding room. It will give us a concise reality of where each man stands on gun related events. and which way they see the future going.
I believe that is what the writers wished to do, and to that end they accomplished their goal. If you give a politicial "any" wiggle room" , wiggle they will.

 

[Nushif]

What this survey would have done to me is make me delete it and ignore it because it insults my intelligence.
Then these informed voters would have gotten back a big fat F on my report card because clearly I am utterly against the second amendment.

Would you call that a useful survey?